Watered Down Doctrines

[Deborah]

I just want to file a complaint with this: If no revelation has ever been received on the deeper doctrines, where did they come from?

You are confusing issues. No one said revelation has stopped, and certainly each individual is entitled to his own personal revelation. The reason some of the more esoteric things aren't spoken of from the pulpit is because members have a hard enough time just doing the basics. Also we have an evergrowing church with new converts constantly coming in. Many of them don't have enough foundation to even begin discussing some of the deeper issues. Joseph was in a different time and every word he uttered wasn't immediately put on the internet and parsed to change its intent and meaning.

Even something as straightforward as baptism for the dead requires an understanding of the importance of the afterlife, sealings. the eternal nature of covenants and the justice of God and his mercy, which allows us to do this vicarious work. This is why those who aren't members of the church just plain think we are weird.

Once again, nothing is stopping you from studying and receiving your own personal revelation; but you do need to realize some things won't be revealed n this life simply because we would not understand the true meaning or we just don't need it.

[changed]

Yes. In the link published by the Church in my siggy.

read it, thanks.

Therefore, a newer publication/work, superceeds older ones.

I would think that new stuff "builds" on the old stuff, not really superceeds it...

Nope. I can still see them, in two different editions, from where I'm sitting at the moment.

I don't have any of those editions.

are designed for individual study and discernment.

You are confusing issues. No one said revelation has stopped, and certainly each individual is entitled to his own personal revelation. The reason some of the more esoteric things aren't spoken of from the pulpit is because members have a hard enough time just doing the basics. Also we have an evergrowing church with new converts constantly coming in. Many of them don't have enough foundation to even begin discussing some of the deeper issues. Joseph was in a different time and every word he uttered wasn't immediately put on the internet and parsed to change its intent and meaning.

Even something as straightforward as baptism for the dead requires an understanding of the importance of the afterlife, sealings. the eternal nature of covenants and the justice of God and his mercy, which allows us to do this vicarious work. This is why those who aren't members of the church just plain think we are weird.

Once again, nothing is stopping you from studying and receiving your own personal revelation; but you do need to realize some things won't be revealed n this life simply because we would not understand the true meaning or we just don't need it.

It seems a dangerous proposition for people to start studying things on their own though donâ??t you think? I mean you might end up with things like people praying to Heavenly Mother

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi..._&hideNav=1

â??This [practice] began in private prayer and is beginning to spread to prayers offered in some of our meetings....

Etcâ?¦ when you start telling everyone to start going solo on some subjectsâ?¦

There are progressive levels/ different classesâ?¦ primary, YM/YW, gospel essentials gospel doctrine, etc. etcâ?¦ Does anyone know why the HP group meets separately from EQ? I mean RS is just one big group, there is no separate classes for those who are older/wiserâ?¦

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems a dangerous proposition for people to start studying things on their own though donâ??t you think?

Surely you jest.

[changed]

Surely you jest.

no, really. Without weekly meetings, without leadership for course corrections every now and then, you can start heading in the wrong direction very quickly... There is a lot of stuff in the temple I would love to learn more aboutâ?¦ I mean it is all symbolic, so you sit there speculating about what all the symbols mean, and I am really good at speculating and then I spend my time in the waiting room whispering to my DH asking him all these questions about what he thinks it all means (while everyone else is quietly meditating) but I can't talk about it outside the temple, so what else is there to do?

Maybe it is just me, but you have no idea how far off center my mind can get.

[ed2276]

ok changed, just as a point of clarification:

You have cited an anti-Mormon source as the premise for your initial question; you do not know what official doctrine is or how something becomes official doctrine; you bring up Adam-God "stuff" and polygamy--areas our critics like to hit us on; finally, you seem to tell us you are LDS by using the term "we" in your posting in reference to things LDS.

My question to you, very simply put: Are you presently, in fact, an active, believing, temple-going LDS?

[Olavarria]

The OP was all about King Follet stuff. Now that it has been shown that it hsn't been taken from us we get "Adam-God" and eternal polygamy thrown into the mix.

Adam-God

"Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species."

Brigham Young;JD 4:217.

Is that any different from what we have today?

Celestial Marriage

President Lorenzo Snow said:

Some of the brethren are worrying about the matter and feel that they ought to have other wives. Brethren, do not worry; you will lose nothing. Turning to Heber, he said, "There is Brother Heber J. Grant, who is without a son and who consequently feels anxious about it." I want to say to Brother Grant that he will have sons and daughters and his posterity shall become as numerous as the sands upon the seashore or the stars in heaventhe promise made to Abraham is his through faithfulness. Brethren, don't worry about these things, and if you don't happen to secure the means you would like, don't feel disappointed. The Lord will make you rich in due time, and if you are faithful, you will become Gods in eternity. This I know to be the truth. Diaries of Rudger Clawson, 11 July 1901. Stan Larson, Diaries of Rudger Clawson, 300-01

I'll follow his advice.

This is the doctrine of all doctrine

Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported:

â??I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.â?

Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26; spelling and capitalization modernized.

Wilford Woodruff said:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

(Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

[changed]

ok changed, just as a point of clarification:

You have cited an anti-Mormon source as the premise for your initial question; you do not know what official doctrine is or how something becomes official doctrine; you bring up Adam-God "stuff" and polygamy--areas our critics like to hit us on; finally, you seem to tell us you are LDS by using the term "we" in your posting in reference to things LDS.

My question to you, very simply put: Are you presently, in fact, an active, believing, temple-going LDS?

Yes, went to the temple not yesterday, but the friday before. I am currently the RS secretary. I am a convert, my fam reads anti-stuff, so I have seen some of it. I have decided to start broadening what I read (I read a lot). I don't find the anti-stuff testimony shaking, I find the concepts that they bring up fascinating. I think the deeper doctrines are some of the more shoking sounding doctrines, the anti's generally go for the meat before milk thing. It is interesting to try and follow their links, find what little bits of truth they have found, and find out where it is coming from. Sorry for the orig link. I guess I should have just linked to all the orig quotes (which were from LDS sources). Sorry. After reading a bit, it does sort of feel like the dynamics of the church have changed a bit from the beginning though. Some of the original sermons were a bit more... how should I say, rousing? than what we tend to hear today, don't you think?

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-11.html

But while I talk, the vision of my mind is opened; the subject spreads forth and branches out like the branches of a thrifty tree; and as for the glory of God, how great it is! I feel to say, Hallelujah to His great and holy name; for He reigns in the heavens, and He will exalt His people to sit with Him upon thrones of power, to reign for ever and ever.

I mean, when was the last time a prophet had a vision while standing in front of everyone, told everyone "I am having a vision"... or when was the last time a prophet even said "I have had a vision" in my vision I was told xyz" - Can anyone quote the last actual vision that was given?

[Olavarria]

My question to you, very simply put: Are you presently, in fact, an active, believing, temple-going LDS?

I mean, when was the last time a prophet had a vision while standing in front of everyone, told everyone "I am having a vision"... or when was the last time a prophet even said "I have had a vision" in my vision I was told xyz" - Can anyone quote the last actual vision that was given?

Heber J. Grant

So I went to the president's office, and there sat brother Teasdale, and all of the ten Apostles, and the Presidency of the Church, and also Seymour B. Young and the members of the seven presidents of Seventies. And the revelation was read calling brother Teasdale and myself to the apostleship, and brother Seymour B. Young to be one of the seven presidents of Seventies. Brother Teasdale was blessed by President John Taylor, and George Q. Cannon blessed me...

I was a very unhappy man from October to February. For the next four months whenever I would bear my testimony of the divinity of the Savior, there seemed to be a voice that would say: "You lie, because you have never seen him." One of the brethren had made the remark that unless a man had seen the Lamb of God --- that was his expression --- he was not fit to be an Apostle. This feeling that I have mentioned would follow me. I would wake up in the night with the impression: "You do not know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, because you have never seen him," and the same feeling would come to me when I would preach and bear testimony. It worried me from October to the following February.

I was in Arizona, traveling with Brigham Young, Jr., and a number of other brethren, visiting the Navajo Indians and the Moki Indians... I had this feeling that I ought not to testify any more about the Savior and that really, I was not fit to be an Apostle. It seemed overwhelming to me that I should be one. There was a spirit that said: "If you have not seen the Savior, why don't you resign your position?"

As I rode along alone, I seemed to see a Council in Heaven. The Savior was there; the Prophet Joseph was there; my father and others that I knew were there. In this Council it seemed that they decided that a mistake had been made in not filling the vacancies in the quorum of the Twelve, and conference had adjourned. The chances were the brethren would wait another six months, and the way to remedy the situation was to send a revelation naming the men who should fill the vacancies. In this council the Prophet said, "I want to be represented by one of my own on that council."

I had always understood and known that my mother was sealed to the Prophet, and that Brigham Young had told my father that he would not marry my mother to him for eternity, because he had instructions from the Prophet that if anything happened to him before he was married to Rachel Ivins she must be sealed to him for eternity, that she belonged to him.

That is the reason that father spoke up in this council to which I have referred, and said: "Why not choose the boy who bears my name who belongs to you, to be one of the Apostles?" That is the inspiration that was given to me.

I can truthfully say that from February, 1883, until today I have never had any of that trouble, and I can bear testimony that I know that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, and that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of the living God...

(Improvement Era, Nov. 1942, pp. 756-757.)

Boyd K. Packer

We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so.

But we are free, indeed, we ar obliged, to bear that special witness

." (Conference Report, April 1980, p. 86.)

Russel M. Nelson

As a special witness of Jesus Christ, I testify that He lives! I also testify that the veil of death is very thin. I know by experiences too sacred to relate that those who have gone before are not strangers to leaders of this Church.

(Ensign, May, 1992, p. 74.)

Boyd K. Packer again

I have heard one of my brethren declare: "I know from experiences, too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ." I have heard another testify: "I know that God lives; I know that the Lord lives. and more than that, I know the Lord."

(Ensign, June, 1971, p. 88.)

David O. McKay.....maybe.

I served my mission in Monterrey Mexico South Mission(2000-2002). We were in the Sierra Madre ward for 4 months. There, half the members were anglo-americans. One of the ex-pat families was a man and his wife. He was actually an architect or something and He basically is in charge of temple building. He was overseeing the Monterrey Mexico Temple construction or something like that.

Anyway, we were eating at his house and before dinner chatting on the couch. He told my companion and I that he was present at the dedication of the Los Angeles Temple. He sai, that he heard David O. McKay say, that DOMcK told the people that he had heard the audible voice of the Lord and that the Lord said that he accepted that temple> He told me this because I was from LA. 2nd hand info for me, 3rd for you. Take it for what its worth.

Elder Orson F. Whitney

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

President David O. McKay

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

President Spencer W. Kimball

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

[kamenraider]

When I posted a statement above that was signed by the First Presidency and the Twelve that spoke of polygamy as being necesssary for man's highest exaltation, and then asked "Has this doctrine been taken from us?", I wasn't referring to the doctrine of polygamy (which is still taught in D&C section 132), but rather the doctrine that polygamy is a requirement for exaltation. Since OD-1, the Manifesto of 1890, the Church has not taught this due to polygamy no longer being practiced by the Church. Statements have even been made, such as Lorenzo Snow's statement posted above by Her Amun, that we need not worry about not living polygamy now. But what about during endless eternities in the future? The statement above and D&C 132 and the Sept. 27, 1886 revelation make it clear, at least to me, that polygamy will ultimately be required for exaltation, and yet we have statements from people like Melvin J. Ballard and Bruce R. McConkie that polygamy is not a requirement for salvation or exaltation. There is a sense in which their statements may be true, which is that if we are unable to live that law now, then we are not held accountable for not living it. I think that the idea or doctrine, or reinterpretation, that polygamy is ultimately not required or essential to exaltation though, is an apostate one, because it contradicts the word of the Lord on the subject.

[MormonMason]

...

I don't have any of those editions.

...

Buy them, if you can. You can get them at any LDS bookstore for between $10-$20. I have seen them in hardback and paperback editions as well. You can even get a couple special and/or deluxe leatherbound collectors' editions for between $30 and $60 dollars or so. Look for sales. If you have a copy (whether original or facsimile) of the First Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, you already have them.

I have three editions of them myself, right where I can see them at this moment--if I turn around.

This notwithstanding, they were removed because they never were revelations. They were not part of the Book of Commandments, either. The Doctrine and Covenants was returned to a state of being nearer to original layout and design of the Book of Commandments when the lectures were removed.

[MormonMason]

When I posted a statement above that was signed by the First Presidency and the Twelve that spoke of polygamy as being necesssary for man's highest exaltation, and then asked "Has this doctrine been taken from us?", I wasn't referring to the doctrine of polygamy (which is still taught in D&C section 132), but rather the doctrine that polygamy is a requirement for exaltation. Since OD-1, the Manifesto of 1890, the Church has not taught this due to polygamy no longer being practiced by the Church. Statements have even been made, such as Lorenzo Snow's statement posted above by Her Amun, that we need not worry about not living polygamy now. But what about during endless eternities in the future? The statement above and D&C 132 and the Sept. 27, 1886 revelation make it clear, at least to me, that polygamy will ultimately be required for exaltation, and yet we have statements from people like Melvin J. Ballard and Bruce R. McConkie that polygamy is not a requirement for salvation or exaltation. There is a sense in which their statements may be true, which is that if we are unable to live that law now, then we are not held accountable for not living it. I think that the idea or doctrine, or reinterpretation, that polygamy is ultimately not required or essential to exaltation though, is an apostate one, because it contradicts the word of the Lord on the subject.

Several leaders of the Church stated that the Lord would make the necessary adjustments in future for those prevented from living "the principle" by circumstances. They even went so far as to state their opinion that even those with one wife would be exalted. And, they made comments like that during the time when plural marriage was in practice. In addition, plural marriage was a calling. (See Orson Pratt's The Seer). It was understood that there would be those who could not practice plural marriage and that it would be impossible for everyone to live it.

[Olavarria]

When I posted a statement above that was signed by the First Presidency and the Twelve that spoke of polygamy as being necesssary for man's highest exaltation, and then asked "Has this doctrine been taken from us?", I wasn't referring to the doctrine of polygamy (which is still taught in D&C section 132), but rather the doctrine that polygamy is a requirement for exaltation. Since OD-1, the Manifesto of 1890, the Church has not taught this due to polygamy no longer being practiced by the Church. Statements have even been made, such as Lorenzo Snow's statement posted above by Her Amun, that we need not worry about not living polygamy now. But what about during endless eternities in the future? The statement above and D&C 132 and the Sept. 27, 1886 revelation make it clear, at least to me, that polygamy will ultimately be required for exaltation, and yet we have statements from people like Melvin J. Ballard and Bruce R. McConkie that polygamy is not a requirement for salvation or exaltation. There is a sense in which their statements may be true, which is that if we are unable to live that law now, then we are not held accountable for not living it. I think that the idea or doctrine, or reinterpretation, that polygamy is ultimately not required or essential to exaltation though, is an apostate one, because it contradicts the word of the Lord on the subject.

Well, if your right, then you are right. If you are wrong then you are wrong. In the end, it has nothing to do with why I didnt get 100% on home teaching this month.

[Olavarria]

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.

Lets look at it point by point.

Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms.

I would agree. Just cuz you hav 2 wives doesn't mean your living the Principle(read Saudi royalty). You have to do it for eternity through the one who has the keys etc. see Section 132.

Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages.

Thats the rub, "the laws of the Church". This statement isn't contraditing previous statements, like the one Kamen posted. Its simply saying, contrary to the fundamentalist claims, modern monogamous marriages can be Celestial because that is all the current laws of the Churchprovide for.

As for polygamy being recuired for exaltation......Well, that is the reason why early mormons practiced polygamy, they believed that they needed to in order to get exaltation. I read a biography of Camilla Ehyring Kimball; her father was a pot manifesto polygamous. In it, the reason given for why her father took another wife was because they believed they needed to in order to be exalted.

Polygamy as "recquirment for exaltation" explains why WW, LS and JFS continued post manifesto plural marriage. If it wasn't nessesary why keep going?

[mnn727]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/en...mormon-doctrine

Every Anti should be forced to memorize this and post it prominantly on anything they write - IMHO

[mnn727]

Does anyone know why the HP group meets separately from EQ? I mean RS is just one big group, there is no separate classes for those who are older/wiserâ?¦

Yeah, the EQ members were complaining that the HP's snoring keeping their babies awake. And the HP's kept complaining that the EQ's babies crying were preventing them from enjoying their naps.....err lesson.

[kamenraider]

Her Amun, I agree with your analysis of that statement. I think though that if we compare an eternity of life in the Celestial Kingdom with our very brief mortal lives here, we can see that the former is much more significant than the latter. How things such as marriages are being done in the Church now has little impact on how they will be done in the eternities.

MormonMason, I agree with you that Lord will make the necessary adjustments in future for those prevented from living "the principle" by circumstances. The statements by Brigham Young about only needing one wife are usually taken out of context, such as when LifeonaPlate posted this awhile back: "A man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife (Brigham Young Letterbook II:735)." In context it reads: "You ask can a man be saved with but one wife? If he can, in what kingdom? I answer, a man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with no wife at all, and a woman with no husband, and of course, then, a man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife."

--Brigham Young to Charles H. Hales, August 18, 1869, B. Y. Letterbooks II:735.

Plural marriage was a calling? Could you give me a page number for where that is in the Seer? There's over 300 pages in it, so it would make finding that a bit easier for me. I know that pg. 31 of the Washington D.C. edition says that approval needs to be obtained from the Prophet for a plural marriage to take place, but I don't think that's the same thing. The Prophet can also delegate this to other men, which is what I understand was sometimes done after the Manifesto in order for the Prophet to be able to deny any knowledge of any new marriages.

I didn't want to derail this into a polygamy discusion though. My point here is that the idea of polygamy being ultimately necessary for exaltation is an example of a doctrine that has been taken from us in the sense of both not being taught anymore, and also being largely reinterpreted.

[MormonMason]

Her Amun, I agree with your analysis of that statement. I think though that if we compare an eternity of life in the Celestial Kingdom with our very brief mortal lives here, we can see that the former is much more significant than the latter. How things such as marriages are being done in the Church now has little impact on how they will be done in the eternities.

MormonMason, I agree with you that Lord will make the necessary adjustments in future for those prevented from living "the principle" by circumstances. The statements by Brigham Young about only needing one wife are usually taken out of context, such as when LifeonaPlate posted this awhile back: "A man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife (Brigham Young Letterbook II:735)." In context it reads: "You ask can a man be saved with but one wife? If he can, in what kingdom? I answer, a man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with no wife at all, and a woman with no husband, and of course, then, a man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife."

--Brigham Young to Charles H. Hales, August 18, 1869, B. Y. Letterbooks II:735.

Plural marriage was a calling? Could you give me a page number for where that is in the Seer? There's over 300 pages in it, so it would make finding that a bit easier for me. I know that pg. 31 of the Washington D.C. edition says that approval needs to be obtained from the Prophet for a plural marriage to take place, but I don't think that's the same thing. The Prophet can also delegate this to other men, which is what I understand was sometimes done after the Manifesto in order for the Prophet to be able to deny any knowledge of any new marriages.

I didn't want to derail this into a polygamy discusion though. My point here is that the idea of polygamy being ultimately necessary for exaltation is an example of a doctrine that has been taken from us in the sense of both not being taught anymore, and also being largely reinterpreted.

Only one man holds the keys at any one time. While the authority may be delegated to others, the keys remain in the hands of him who is President of the Church. I disagree with your interpretation of the passage from The Seer in question. Here is the complete citation on the matter what was required to practice plural marriage:

Now in the early rise of this church, the Lord gave no command unto any of His servants authorizing them to take more than one wife, but on the contrary, which the Lord did not see proper to give unto any of them, until about thirteen years after the first organization of the church. The church, therefore, are still restricted, by the severest penalties, to one wife, according to the Book of Mormon, unless in individual cases where the Lord shall, by revelation, direct otherwise.

No man in Utah, who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any propositions of marriage to a lady, until he has consulted the President over the whole church, and through him, obtains a revelation from God, as to whether it would be pleasing in His sight. If he is forbidden by revelation, that ends the matter: if, by revelation, the privelege is granted, he still has no right to consult the feelings of the young lady, until he has obtained the approbation of her parents, provided they are living in Utah; if their consent cannot be obtained, this also ends the matter. But if the parents or guardians freely give their consent, then he may make propositions of marriage to the young lady; if she refuse these propositions, this also ends the matter; but if she accept, a day is generally set apart by the parties for the marriage ceremony to be celebrated. It is necessary to state, that before any man takes the least step towards getting another wife, it is his duty to consult the feelings of the wife which he already has, and obtain her consent, as recorded in the 24th paragraph of the revelation, published in the first No. of â??The Seer.â?

(Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 30-31; bold emphasis mine)

I see the passage as clear enough as it stands without having to redefine anything therein. I see nothing about delegating the receipt of revelation to anyone regarding this practice here.

As to being required for exaltation, since circumstances are such today as to prevent the practice of plural marriage while all parties are living, and that it was done by revelation, it stands to reason that the Lord will make adjustments and that it is no longer required for exaltation.

And, in keeping with what Orson Pratt stated above, it is hard to think that God would call some to exaltation while prevent others from doing the same by revelation. For those called by revelation to the principle, it would be required for exaltation. For those not so called, having but one wife is all that was required. Are there differing degrees of exaltation? Probably. Will those who entered into this practice receive a higher exaltation than those who were prevented from doing so? Perhaps.

But, there is no need to address this subject to the Saints when the practice of plural marriages in life is suspended by revelation by the one man who holds the keys, hence it is not really something watered down, in my view. It simply is unnecessary and suspended at the current time in the Church.

[alter idem]

As for polygamy being recuired for exaltation......Well, that is the reason why early mormons practiced polygamy, they believed that they needed to in order to get exaltation. I read a biography of Camilla Ehyring Kimball; her father was a pot manifesto polygamous. In it, the reason given for why her father took another wife was because they believed they needed to in order to be exalted.

IMO, LDS who practiced polygamy after it was forbidden by the church are "ark steadiers". They still believe in the church, yet they defy their prophets because they think they know better. There's no logic to it.

Polygamy as "recquirment for exaltation" explains why WW, LS and JFS continued post manifesto plural marriage. If it wasn't nessesary why keep going?

I don't think you can come to this conclusion because Joseph F. Smith was the Prophet who clamped down on post-manifesto polygamy and began the systematic excommunication of any taking additional wives after the second manifesto.

[Olavarria]

This is the way I see the topic of "watered down" doctrine. I will use XYZ to represent any given doctrine. The sceneraios I paint are hypothetical,

Brigham Young in the April 1860 General Conference said: "XYZ".

Thomas S. Monson in the October 2009 General Conference says: "Not XYZ".

There are two possibilites here.

1)XYZ

2) Not XYZ

3) XYZ during 1860, no XYZ during 2009

If scenerio 1 is the case then BY is right and TSM is wrong. In this case, believers in XYZ have nothing to worry about because XYZ is still the case, so they just have to wait till they die and enjoy all the blessings of living in an XYZ universe. Unbelivers in XYZ wave their edition of the General Conference Ensign in vain cuz when they die they will have to accept the fact they live in an XYZ Universe. No amount of quote mining, blog posts, protests, exit testimonies and General Conference talks will ever make XYZ untrue.

If scenario 2 is the case then BY is wrong and TSM is right. In this case, unbelievers in XYZ have nothing to worry about because XYZ is not the case, so they just have to wait till they die and enjoy all the blessings of living in an

NO XYZ universe. Belivers in XYZ wave their Journal of Discources in vain cuz when they die they will have to accept the fact they live in an NO XYZ Universe. No amount of quote mining, blog posts, protests, exit testimonies and General Conference talks will ever make XYZ true.

If scenraio 3 is the case then BY and TSM are in perfect agreement. In this case, believers in XYZ and unbelivers in XYZ need to chill out. No amount of quote mining, blog posts, protests, exit testimonies and General Conference talks will ever change the fact that XYZ during 1860, no XYZ during 2009. See Scenrario 2.

[changed]

Heber J. Grant

(Improvement Era, Nov. 1942, pp. 756-757.)

Boyd K. Packer

." (Conference Report, April 1980, p. 86.)

Russel M. Nelson

(Ensign, May, 1992, p. 74.)

Boyd K. Packer again

(Ensign, June, 1971, p. 88.)

Thanks for those quotes, I have no doubts that the prophets are still receiving revelations etcâ?¦ the same stuff is going on now as it was when the church was organized, what troubles me, is that this stuff is not being taught, it seems, at allâ?¦ It is happening, but it is not being shared. Why is it not being shared? There were a lot more sacred things being shared in the past than are now shared is allâ?¦

Buy them, if you can. You can get them at any LDS bookstore for between $10-$20.

I will add that to my Christmas list

I didn't want to derail this into a polygamy discusion though. My point here is that the idea of polygamy being ultimately necessary for exaltation is an example of a doctrine that has been taken from us in the sense of both not being taught anymore, and also being largely reinterpreted.

And why was polygamy taken? It was not taken away because of the law of the landâ?¦ I think it was taken away for the same reason the law of consecration was takenâ?¦

5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 78:5 - 6)

Seems like "being equal in earthly things" might be something that would be advantageous to do... here on earth in this life... don't you think? These ideals were taken because people were not worthy to live it...

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:33)

10 â?¦. Inasmuch as ye do it not, it shall be taken, even that which ye have received.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 43:10)

Can you judge the state of the church by the depth of what is being taught?

I canâ??t find it right now, but before the 2nd coming, what is the state of the church? I know that the priesthood will not be taken from the earth again, but how many priesthood holders exactly will be left?

â??President Kimball likened the Parable of the Ten Virgins to the conditions of the world and the Church at the Second Coming.â?

Soâ?¦. 50% of the people in the church are not going to make it? That is a pretty big numberâ?¦

1)XYZ

2) Not XYZ

3) XYZ during 1860, no XYZ during 2009

4) XYZ is true, but will only be taught to a people worthy of the knowledge.

[Olavarria]

Thanks for those quotes, I have no doubts that the prophets are still receiving revelations etcâ?¦ the same stuff is going on now as it was when the church was organized, what troubles me, is that this stuff is not being taught, it seems, at allâ?¦ It is happening, but it is not being shared. Why is it not being shared? There were a lot more sacred things being shared in the past than are now shared is allâ?¦

I don't know. I think there are 3 possible reasons:

1) In the BY days, the Saints largely self-segregated themselves from the rest of the world. They didn't have the Associated Press or Youtube to worry about. So, the Prophets were more free to speak their mind and think aloud on XYZ without having to worry about people trying to use their words against them(Alma 10: 13, 17). They were among friends.

Even today, I suspect that the Bretheren would be more open when speaking with a group of missionaries at a mission conference than with someone like Geraldo.

2)Many of the earliest revelations had to do with establishing the kingdom of God, recieving the BoM, priesthood keys etc. It is important that people know what when on. Where do you get your authority from? Where does this book come from? What makes you think yo can seal or baptize fore the dead? "Well, on such and such day an angel...". It seems to me that special manifestations are shared largly on a need to know basis.

3)The Lord wants us to have our own eternal experiences. Rather than merely reading or hearing those of others.

I have never shaken hands with an angel, but if I did I would never tellanyone. See 1) and 2).

4) XYZ is true, but will only be taught to a people worthy of the knowledge.

Here is the thing, you think Pres. Monson, Eyhring,Uctdorf or Packer don't know what is in the JoD?

Pres Eyhring, who has a post-manifesto polygamist grandfather from Chihuahua, you think he doesn't know what was tought vs what is tought about plural marriage?

Gordon B. Hinkley's grandfather Alonzo Hinckly was a polygamist.

As was Spencer W. Kimball's father in law(Pres Eyhring's grampa). J

Joseph Fielding Smith was the son of Joseph F. Smith as was raised in the principle. And we all know what a tremendous influence he was on BRM.

Joseph F. Smith(ZZ Top), who was ordained an apostle by BY, you think he never heard Brigham Young teach "Adam-God"?

Heber J. Grant, who knew BY since childhood, you think he never heard the hard stuff?

And lets not forget Hugh Nibley, whos very own grampa was a polygamist as well. Who knows what he learned and knew through his intellectual facuties and personal connections yet, he followed the Bretheren.

My point is, all of these faithful men are/were acquinted with the "hard stuff". With the exception of Nibley, they are all Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

And they all teach what they teach and tought what they tought.

My questian is: what do these Bretheren(Ehyring,Kimball,Smith,Hinkley) know that we don't know?

In other words, what keeps these Prophets, Seers and Revelators from teaching the "hard stuff"? We can speculate till dooms day why that is.

But the facts are what they are. Prophets, Seers and Revelators are choosing to teach us ABC and not XYZ. Why? I have faith that God wants them to keep teaching ABC and not XYZ. That doesnt mean XYZ is wrong; it just means that we TODAY don't need to know XYZ in order to pass the tests we are continually confronted with. We do have to become masters of ABC tough.

Alma 29:1-3 (Her Amun Translation)

1) O that I were from the 1800's, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might listen to BY preach "Adam-God", plural marriage as a prerequisite for exaltation, Gathering in one central gathering point and the United Order!!

2) Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, "Adam-God", plural marriage, the United Order and Gathering that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth.

3) But behold, I live in the day of Thomas S. Monson, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.